I think Civ 4 should add trenchs which are made by workers. The trenchs would add a defensive bonus and instead of attacking the next square over you have a range of two. Also if you killed a enemy you would not move to thier square. Trenchs should update sandbags and be updated by workers to barbed trenchs. The trenchs should be made available by a tech called "Trench Warfare" or something like that. The tech should add artillery that launches mustard gas, that like has a chance of hurting every unit in the trench and trench machine gunners and "Storm Troopers" used in WWI and they were trained to storm trenches. I think a trenchs can be as long as the ground will let them and roads can go across the trenchs until they are pillaged or a trench is built on it. Also this brings up another suggestion for Multiplayer. The UN should be more than a way to win. It could be a place were the elected leader calls a meeting to discuss to send weapons inspectors or to negoitate war or aprrove of it. And in Civ 4 AI and human players could make protection pacts. Not just two countries together but a whole bunch of countries like NATO or the Warsaw Pact. If Countries had a pact the trenchs could be shared by one another and called a Front. Please Reply I want to know your thoughts.

C3C has something similar already in barricades, the modern era graphic art is barbedwire. It should be simple enough to create art work for trenches.

First wellcome to CFC forums!!!!
my thoughts are that we should check if our idea is already debated in this forum:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89856 :)

I The UN should be more than a way to win. It could be a place were the elected leader calls a meeting to discuss to send weapons inspectors or to negoitate war or aprrove of it. And in Civ 4 AI and human players could make protection pacts. Not just two countries together but a whole bunch of countries like NATO or the Warsaw Pact. If Countries had a pact the trenchs could be shared by one another and called a Front. Please Reply I want to know your thoughts.

I like this idea. If any one here has played alpha centari than the UN should be like the global council, but better. UN members would come to the aid of other UN nations under attack. But not all nations would be allowed into the UN. Despotisms, and Fascists countries would not be allowed in the UN. But my oppinion on governments is a whole nother issue.

... Despotisms, and Fascists countries would not be allowed in the UN...

Why not????

(I had to put the extra '?' in there because the site said my message was too short :rolleyes: )

I totaly agree with you on the enhanced diplomacy. I too feel that the UN should give the players more options, for instance to send peacekeepers, or to demand a player to stop their agression to an other player or else. Currently the only option for you to stop a war against a friendly player is to go to war yourselve, which would make you look like the bad guy.

Well Sorry Garbarsardar .jr. Exactly my point Dieterbos. But maybe the country who makes the U.N could pick the first members and they vote on who is in or demorcary and republic are automactic and they choose who is in. Any more ideas. Thanks for your replys! ;)

I think the defenders should spread their defense allong the full length of the trench, because that's what trench warfare was like: a complete barrier

If it's just an improvement like forts, the enemy can simply go around... and you cannot walk around trenches!

Also, you don't know where the enemy is strongest in trenches, so having a defense where there is a trench but no unit (it's in the trench but on a different tile) is scarey... trench warfare was scarey.

The only thing this would mess up is bombarding: But we know that bombarding never worked well against trenches, so it's easilly fixed :p

trenchs should be made available by a tech called "Trench Warfare" or something like that.

I thought trench warfare was the effect of lacking technology :p

How about if it comes at the same time as riflemen? Riflemen (or snipers) ended the use of block formations; and trench warfare is the result of having skirmishing units in a stand off.

@stormbind: You'd simply to have to build a continuous line of them. Some folks do this with fortresses/barricades already.

but the difference between trences and a fortress is that military units can build trenches.

But that's pooey. I don't know anyone who sets up a line of troops like that; it's simply not a good strategy.

Trench warfare was not planned. It is the result of having no plans! I mean, really, it was imposed on the WW1 armies because they were all-thrust ... trench warfare is a deadlock / stalemate ... it's not something you would intentionally choose.

To introduce it into the game, it has to be the result of not being able to get around the enemy... otherwise, you will ignore the trenches and employ completely different tactics.

Stormbind thats bull! The trenchs would inable you to build a blockade. Say for example you surround a city with trenchs and put a unit in every square. You could hold out till reinforcements come. And this could be a seperation between countries so those countries need to build a strong navy.

Stop that!
Stormbind's point is correct in his last post.

Trenches around cities? When did this ever happen?

It Could Be In No Countrys Zone. Its up to the player

Then if the trench idea is bad to you what do you think about the other ideas? HUH?

haven't played c3c what do the baricades do? slow movement?
isn't it just an improved version of the fortify command?
we need combat engineers!
artillery may not have been too effective against the troops in the trenches but it was great as covering fire for advancing troops.
maybe at first make storm troops as special purpose assault infantry but remember that mosty modern infantry tactics are based on the stormtroops of WW1

I do agree with Strombind on one point: trenches came about because the generals didn't know what else to do! There were "Infantry units" all around them, so why not just dig in! Maybe the other guys will leave first. But then they dug in too, and they were left with just a mess.

It takes a lot out of the excitement of the game to have stalemates. Besides, the area of trench warfare in WWI was relatively narrow, only the border of Germany and France. This is about 4 or 5 tile lengths in a very large (300x300) Civ map, which rarely ever has bottlenecks like these. Plugging a gap in the lines with sheer body mass of troops may be a good idea in some cases, but most of the time it is plain inefficient.

Go back to the UN topic, that sounds more promising. Though who would want to send weapons inspectors in favor of cruise missiles? ;)

I like this idea. If any one here has played alpha centari than the UN should be like the global council, but better. UN members would come to the aid of other UN nations under attack. But not all nations would be allowed into the UN. Despotisms, and Fascists countries would not be allowed in the UN. But my oppinion on governments is a whole nother issue.


I agree completely with sealman all governments should be allowed into a UN just like now there are many different governments participating in the real UN.

But some are just plain ignored due to government type or a disputed nation.

Example:
Japan was bullied out of the League of Nations (forerunner of UN) because it would not yield to other nations requests of demobilization.

Not including Fascist nations in the UN would be, amongst other things, historically inaccurate. Spain was part of the UN almost since its inception, even though Franco was the FASCIST dictator.

The Trenches could slow advancing troops not just by one turn like barricades but taking alot out on the way then reinforcements could take out the weakened forces. This could also take out supply routes or hold of in a stalemate between the two trenchs reinforcements could take out the other side. This would help weak nations fight back from superpowers that are set on world domination

The Trenches could slow advancing troops not just by one turn like barricades but taking alot out on the way then reinforcements could take out the weakened forces. This could also take out supply routes or hold of in a stalemate between the two trenchs reinforcements could take out the other side. This would help weak nations fight back from superpowers that are set on world domination

oops computers messed. Sorry

I think trenches can simulated by simply fortifying your units... what are your units doing? Digging in? Making defensive positions basicly. Anything more is represented already by Forts.

u stole my idea, from another thread but i think this is good

Good idea, but, IMO, the tech should be "Earthworks" (it just sounds cooler than "Trenches")

Sounds Good To Me

Sounds like to me the U.N got no enemys but trenches is controversial.

I did some research and even dictators are in the U.N so probly all could join at first as long as they meet some guidlines then it is decided who stays or not

I can agree that trenches in the game's current format would be an addition that wouldn't come to too much use. I usually fortify a 'line' at bottlenecks where the enemy controls the other side, but rarely otherwise. This is because the game design only makes it worthwhile to attack the cities themselves. Historically, at least in more modern warfare, you are much more likely to try to go around a city, simply because in the real world out there, we have something called SUPPLY LINES. If that was to be implemented into Civ4 (and it should), the introduction of trenches and terrain characteristics would take on a whole new tactical meaning.

Trench Warfare was not something either side chose. It was the first time in history when defenses were considered much better than offensives. The introduction of the Machine Gun made mass charges of infantry suicide unlike in wars like the American Civil War, Napoleon's campaigns. Artillery also rose to a dominant role during the war adding to the havoc of offensive actions. Hundreds of troops could hold out indefinatly (if well supplied) against thousands of troops. Artillery and the Machine Gun became the King and Queen of the battlefield respectively. The defenders communication network was much shorter than the offenders, as a result when a commander ordered a charge on a position the defenders could bunch up in the area before the attackers arrived thus repelling the attack. Also during this time period Cavalry were still the unit of action. Horses, not having thick metal skin to protect them, were cut down in seconds against machine guns that could (if supplied with ammo and water) fire for days at a time. Trenches themselves offered great protection against early artillery (wasn't accurate) that both sides dug in for protection. Then a thing called No Mans Land popped up in between the trenches. Anything in this area was certain to be killed from artillery, machine guns, rifles, gas, barbed wire, etc. Grenades and Mortars also allowed a single soldier to be able to defeat a much larger force and gave infantry there own personall artillery on a squad level. I would love to see this in Civ4 but everyone knows it would be a tremendously bloody war. Its 3:00 AM here so good night all.

Well, I would like to see trenches in some mod, but not in standard civ. Civ is a STRATEGY game, and trenches are TACTICal elements. Surely those infantry units in c3c use trenches, the details just are not shown. So trenches in more tactical mod(or scenario), that's fine for me.

It is also a fact that since telegraph lines were constantly cut (even if dug a couple of metres into the dirt, an artillery grenade could severe the cable), the generals of the time didn't have a clue as to what was going on as soon as the offensive started. The artillery had to move its target forward on a prepared time scale to avoid firing at its own infantry, but if that infantry got stuck the artillery would move its suppressing fire forwards anyway because they wouldn't be aware of this. And even if the weary troops finally captured a trench, they could expect a counter attack from rear trenches, by rested (and revenge thirsty) enemies.

I think trenches can simulated by simply fortifying your units... what are your units doing? Digging in? Making defensive positions basicly. Anything more is represented already by Forts.

My opinion exactly! There's no need to represent every and all variations on defensive earthworks.

Fortified units = temporary defenses
Forts = permanent defenses

Just my 2 c.

My opinion exactly! There's no need to represent every and all variations on defensive earthworks.

Fortified units = temporary defenses
Forts = permanent defenses

Just my 2 c.

The point is that there is a difference between a temporary defense and a well-dug trench. There is also a difference between a well-dug trench and a fortress. As I stated before, the use of trenches (which really normally run from fort to fort) aren't so much use with the current game format which lacks supply lines and mainly (or only) focuses on stack vs. stack combat and city assaults.

Perhaps a unit's defense bonus from being fortified should simply increase over time? Up to a given percentage, of course.

Yeah i supposed you guys have good points

what if trenches could help with blockcades

What are you talking about? Trenches are a bad idea, give up on them.

I think that the stats on the Infantry and Rifleman units already takes into account trenches somewhat -- heavy on defense and low on attack. Their stats were already modeled to how effective their real life counterparts were, and since it's assumed that infantry use trench techniques, explicit trenches would be unnecessary.

Before you get tanks, there are no good offensive units for the industrial era, so battles become wars of attrition, much like WW1 trench warfare.

Also, I do like the UN idea a lot. The Alpha Centauri model should be used as a starting point, and they could add features.

Trench warfare is already implemented in the game, so i do not understand the discussion...

ok trenchs arent in civ3 and there is no defense bonus in the game to show them if there were i wouldnt be able to use calvary to completely destroy everything, if there were trenchs or something representing trenchs i would lose all my calvary as it was in WW1 anyways Trenchs= good idea

When you fortigy an infantry unit, he is digging in, or building a trench. There's no need to complicate this simple process.

yes there is because a infantry unit intrenching them selfs is when they build.............um those one things i forgot the name they are two man holes they dig when staying in one spot, anyways a trench is a more permenat thing also a fort cant represent it because those are like bases of operations or headquaters but a trench is different

Colonel, trenches, bunkers, machine gun nests, blah blah, and fox holes by the way, which is what you are talking about, are modeled by fortifying your unit and the higher defensive strength of the unit. Forts and Barricades represent better and more PERMANENT defense positions. TRENCHES ARE NOT PERMANENT!!!!!!

Takes a deep breath :lol:

yes they are to a point, true that they would be abandoned if they gained ground but did u see them go back and destroy them no and a fox hole could easily be over run by mass troops espically just one little fox hole, now a trench was much harder to bypass ecentally because they are big blockadeing holes with troops in them

Whatever you call it, however you define trench: it is already in the game!!!

No its not, do you see the units building trenchs or does it say do you want to build a trench no it says build fort or fortify ur unit

@Colonel :rolleyes:

:lol:

No its not, do you see the units building trenchs or does it say do you want to build a trench no it says build fort or fortify ur unit

Are you kidding me? Yes you are, pleaze tell me you are.... :eek:
:mischief:
:aargh:
:lol:

As previously stated by myself, the self-proclaimed trench and supply lover (oh well, whatever, nevermind...), the defense bonus of a fortified unit should/could be increased slightly depending on how long it has been fortified. This to represent the improvement of its defensive position over time. Just 'digging in' doesn't mean you have a full scale defensive fortification from north to south with several trench lines, but mainly the troops sitting in their foxholes awaiting the enemy.

You guys saying that trenches are already in the game are a bit shortsighted and don't realize what an artform of its own trenches were made into during WW1. I agree that the higher defense v offense value of infantry is partially supposed to reflect this, but I don't like the idea that a fortress is 'merely trenches'.

I want to see supply lines, hence I want to see the possibility of being able to put up a strong defensive line. Fortresses should have a role to play in this. The biggest problem with Civ (from a military aspect) is that with the current non-supply system, it's only worth it attacking cities anyway. The only thing worth fortifying except cities are bottlenecks... :mad:

Lennon, your idea isn't bad but IMO it would make Civ more complicated on the military end of it, which I certainly do not want. I don't play Civ for the military aspect and I think that the current system works well enough. Would you really want to manage supply lines in civ along with everything else? I know I wouldn't, but that's me.

Lennon, your idea isn't bad but IMO it would make Civ more complicated on the military end of it, which I certainly do not want. I don't play Civ for the military aspect and I think that the current system works well enough. Would you really want to manage supply lines in civ along with everything else? I know I wouldn't, but that's me.

The reason I'd wanna manage supply lines is because I think the terrain gets too irrelevant when it comes to combat. The only time you have to attack in the open is when the AI comes charging into your territory with an army larger than God almighty Himself, only to be pounded into oblivion by your (way too easily) railed artillery and finished off by your best offensive ground units. Then you attack him and, unlike real life, are forced to assault a multi-million populated metropolis. A sane military tactician wants to have a look at the possibility of cutting this obstacle off instead of attacking it head on (and let's leave out the fact that again you use your artillery so that the city is merely in ruins and the defenders a bunch of half dead, homesick cripples).

I'm not so sure about how people want supply units though, as the majority (possibly myself included) would find the micro management to aggravating. But just having your roads connect your units with your supply source isn't all that complicated, the complicated part would just be how to make the AI understand how to protect his supply lines or attack yours. I'm no programmer, so I really couldn't tell HOW hard it'd be to do, but it's what I'd like to see in the game. I wrote extensive suggestions on this in one of the supply threads, but haven't received any response. Naval supply for instance, so that navies would finally count for something.

As previously stated by myself, the self-proclaimed trench and supply lover (oh well, whatever, nevermind...), the defense bonus of a fortified unit should/could be increased slightly depending on how long it has been fortified. This to represent the improvement of its defensive position over time. Just 'digging in' doesn't mean you have a full scale defensive fortification from north to south with several trench lines, but mainly the troops sitting in their foxholes awaiting the enemy.

You guys saying that trenches are already in the game are a bit shortsighted and don't realize what an artform of its own trenches were made into during WW1. I agree that the higher defense v offense value of infantry is partially supposed to reflect this, but I don't like the idea that a fortress is 'merely trenches'.

I want to see supply lines, hence I want to see the possibility of being able to put up a strong defensive line. Fortresses should have a role to play in this. The biggest problem with Civ (from a military aspect) is that with the current non-supply system, it's only worth it attacking cities anyway. The only thing worth fortifying except cities are bottlenecks... :mad:

You are right, only the fortification of units is not a complete trench. Thats why the game adds Forts.

Even don´t forget that in WW I there were nothing more than fox holes. They did not have large bunkers or things like that.

According to your suggest with the supply lines i recommend you to play a military simulation/game.

Even don´t forget that in WW I there were nothing more than fox holes. They did not have large bunkers or things like that.
Update your knowledge of history. The whole western front was a long line of trenches on both sides. At spots in between trenches there would be fortresses, like at Verdun for instance. If you compare mere little foxholes with a fully developed (and they were bloody well developed) WW1 trench, then I shall assume you do not know what you are talking about. A foxhole is not a trench and a trench is not a fortress. I do though agree that the strong defensive value of infantry reflects that they are generally dug in and that when you put them on fortify, that could very well represent being fully entrenched. That's why I think the defensive bonus should increase a bit over time, to represent the trench being improved.


According to your suggest with the supply lines i recommend you to play a military simulation/game..
I do play these kinds of games and therefor I get ideas for Civ that really aren't that complicated. Like I said, if you don't have supply lines, there isn't all that much need for trenches anyway. Trenches are pretty much there to prevent the enemy from breaking through to cut your supply.

EDIT: little spelling mishap... :rolleyes:

Though I would like to see trenchs I have one problem, How the computer will use them, they won't, or more likely they will but it will be strange.

Though I would like to see trenchs I have one problem, How the computer will use them, they won't, or more likely they will but it will be strange.

You're absolutely right. The big problem with trenches (or supply) isn't how to make it easy to understand/use for the human player, which everyone seems to be so worried about. The AI, however, is a whole different issue. I would like to see these things implemented, others don't. That's pretty uncomplicated too. :D

I like where you guys are going Lennon and Colonel. Trenches could make war even a less priorty and/or a huge threat. I could stack my troops ready to cut off "Supply Lines" and the other civ would be not very smart to declare war or else thier screwed. But the trenchs might be stacked and then a sneak attack could devolp. the other civ is stuck with a decision that will change its history: wait and see what happens or fight it out no Or neogatiate and hope for the best*

multiplayer

Wait, did you say to stack trenches :eek: !?!?! How are you going to do that? Build alot of holes on top of each other? :lol:

Update your knowledge of history. The whole western front was a long line of trenches on both sides. At spots in between trenches there would be fortresses, like at Verdun for instance. If you compare mere little foxholes with a fully developed (and they were bloody well developed) WW1 trench, then I shall assume you do not know what you are talking about. A foxhole is not a trench and a trench is not a fortress. I do though agree that the strong defensive value of infantry reflects that they are generally dug in and that when you put them on fortify, that could very well represent being fully entrenched. That's why I think the defensive bonus should increase a bit over time, to represent the trench being improved.



I do play these kinds of games and therefor I get ideas for Civ that really aren't that complicated. Like I said, if you don't have supply lines, there isn't all that much need for trenches anyway. Trenches are pretty much there to prevent the enemy from breaking through to cut your supply.

EDIT: little spelling mishap... :rolleyes:

It is possible that is my lack of the english language, so we misunderstand each other. I couldn´t find a translation into german for fox holes, but i think it is "Schützengraben" (Maybe you have to write "Schuetzengraben").

But my knowledge of WW I warfare is sufficiently (Babblefish tells me to use this word, but i am not that sure about it).

Talking about trench lines i think of things like the Maginot-Line the french used in WW II.
Lines like that doesn´t exist in WW I, just Forts as you mentioned. In open field the troops simply digged in.

But if you just want "Schützengräben", sorry this is allfready implemented in the game with the fortification ability of the units.

It is possible that is my lack of the english language, so we misunderstand each other. I couldn´t find a translation into german for fox holes, but i think it is "Schützengraben" (Maybe you have to write "Schuetzengraben").

But my knowledge of WW I warfare is sufficiently (Babblefish tells me to use this word, but i am not that sure about it).

Talking about trench lines i think of things like the Maginot-Line the french used in WW II.
Lines like that doesn´t exist in WW I, just Forts as you mentioned. In open field the troops simply digged in.

But if you just want "Schützengräben", sorry this is allfready implemented in the game with the fortification ability of the units.

OK, I think I see what you mean. "Schützengraben" would be trenches (I actually speak some German), not foxholes. A foxhole is just a temporary cover dug by the troops themselves, that don't really connect into one line (a trench). In WW1, most western front trenches were developed/constructed by engineers. Sure, the troops helped digging them, but they weren't 'designed' by the troops and they were constanty made deeper and more advanced.

And again, if we all agree that a fortfied infantry unit is in fact 'entrenched', I still insist that the defensive % bonus should increase slightly up to a certain point over a certain amount of turns. What do you get from being fortified, 25%? Make that slowly rise to say 40% after a given number of turns, because the engineers have been there connecting trenches, set up several lines, MG nests etc. You wouldn't have to do anything or even notice, so what's the problem? Personally I like to think that the longer my troops have been entrenched, the harder their setup will be to penetrate.

OK, I think I see what you mean. "Schützengraben" would be trenches (I actually speak some German), not foxholes. A foxhole is just a temporary cover dug by the troops themselves, that don't really connect into one line (a trench). In WW1, most western front trenches were developed/constructed by engineers. Sure, the troops helped digging them, but they weren't 'designed' by the troops and they were constanty made deeper and more advanced.

And again, if we all agree that a fortfied infantry unit is in fact 'entrenched', I still insist that the defensive % bonus should increase slightly up to a certain point over a certain amount of turns. What do you get from being fortified, 25%? Make that slowly rise to say 40% after a given number of turns, because the engineers have been there connecting trenches, set up several lines, MG nests etc. You wouldn't have to do anything or even notice, so what's the problem? Personally I like to think that the longer my troops have been entrenched, the harder their setup will be to penetrate.

Ok, we got it finally.... :)
Troops are allways building fox holes, but if they are digging in they build trenches.

The principle of giving units a defensive bonus if they are holding a position for a longer time is used in many military simulations. But the problem in CIV is the length of time. Imagine: you can have a unit digged in for several thousand years... this would give the hell of a defensive bonus, and then this will happen: :spear:

What do you get from being fortified, 25%? Make that slowly rise to say 40% after a given number of turns,

I should have been a bit more clear in pointing out that I meant a maximum of 40%, I totally agree that it couldn't improve endlessly. :cool:

i mean massive units in the trench as in the team is stacked learn some vocab

Dumb Texan